Aam Aadmi Party: A Reasonable Appraisal

Hi!

Team CRI have just launched Swarajya! Check it out!

Arvind Kejriwal’sAam Aadmi Party (AAP) rode a wave of anti-incumbency and grassroots-level support to put up an impressive showing by finishing a close second in the recently concluded Delhi Assembly elections in which the corrupt Congress was deservingly decimated. Kejriwal promises that the AAP will not remain confined to Delhi. It will contest the 2014 Lok Sabha polls. Now that AAP has positioned itself as a viable alternative to the BJP and the corrupt Congress, it is only reasonable that one scrutinizes AAP as much as one would scrutinize other parties.

Kejriwal emphasizes the need for probity in public life and a desire to weed out corruption. One must welcome this message given that corruption is pervasive in Indian society. A corrupt government weakens society in many ways. Public are denied services, prices of commodities rise, and a politician with a secret Swiss bank account is easily arm-twisted by imperial powers and the War Inc. thereby weakening national security and economic progress.

A WikiLeaks cable which revealed the American confidence that Rahul Gandhi, Congress’ likely prime ministerial candidate, could be easily manipulated testifies to this reality. Kejriwal is a former Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer. Even though the IRS is perceived to be pervasively corrupt, there hasn’t been any charge of corruption leveled against Kejriwal which says that he is honest. Had he been corrupt, his political opponents would have exposed him. Reforming a corrupt society begins with an honest person. Kejriwal seems to be one.

Kejriwal exposed the illegal land-grab deals of Robert Vadra, the son-in-law of the Congress chieftain Sonia Gandhi. Land mafia is the major cause of deterioration of law and order in India’s metros. It takes courage to target one such mafia don and member of India’s most powerful family. In a society where the English media is brazenly subservient toward the ruling Gandhi family, Kejriwal’s courageous stance should be admired.

AAP promises to implement “a powerful anti-corruption law, Janlokpal, to remove corruption from our system.” Complaints of corruption against politicians and public officials will be investigated on a fast-track basis within six months. Those found guilty would be imprisoned immediately and their property confiscated. A public official who fails to deliver services within prescribed time limits would be punished and the victim compensated within 30 days. One should welcome this stance.

An Indian politician illegally setup 323 ISDN lines to run his cable TV business costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. The infamous 2G Spectrum scandal cost the taxpayer over 40 billion dollars. Sonia Gandhi is reported to have stashed away billions of dollars of corruption money in Swiss banks. But it is impossible to file a complaint against such corrupt politicians, have a fair trial, and punish them. Yevgenia Albats, a member of the official Commission on KGB Operations set up by President Yeltsin, disclosed in her book, The State within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia – Past, Present, and Future, that the Gandhi family had been the beneficiary of KGB payoffs. Yet, in the prevailing system, Sonia Gandhi has evaded judicial and media scrutiny. An expedited trial and imprisonment of these corrupt politicians under Janlokpal would be certainly welcome. It is another story that for Janlokpal to be effective, India’s judicial system has to be reformed.

AAP, which has consistently taken the admirable stance that it would neither give nor take support to enable the formation of coalition government, advocates the citizen’s ‘Right to Reject‘ all candidates in an election. A candidate rejected by the majority cannot contest in the reelection. This is a well-intentioned advocacy though of the motherhood and apple pie variety. Let us assume that the electorate has the ability to judge candidates on merit and reject those who are corrupt and criminal. Let us say this electorate, in an act of collective anger, rejects all candidates. What if there is one honest candidate among many undesirable contestants? Why should he/she be penalized for the crimes of the rest? Hence, the advocacy should be amended to seek a ballot reform.

A voter should rank candidates in the order of preference and exclude those candidates who are unacceptable. Let us say, a voter’s first preference is the AAP candidate and second preference is the BJP candidate but the Congress candidate is unacceptable. The voter would then rank the AAP candidate first, BJP candidate second, and reject the Congress candidate. One could then apply Bayes’ Theorem to prevent a candidate with minority support from stealing the election in a multi-cornered contest.

However, while this would be a good mechanism to weed out vote bank politics and ensure that the majority choice is respected, it does not guarantee the elimination of corrupt and criminal candidates. In a well-reasoned analysis, the former CEC N Gopalaswami argues that the electorate is least bothered by corruption. Only when the public becomes aware of the need to battle corruption and crime, corrupt and criminal politicians would be eliminated.

The manifesto to supply 700 liters of free water to every household and allocate free houses to all slum-dwellers is populist and detrimental to economic progress. Who is going to fund such schemes? What prevents a slum-dweller from illegally renting his allocated apartment to someone as has often been observed in other states where such schemes were attempted? AAP seems to have imitated other political parties to attract its own vote bank: immigrant slum-dwellers. This manifesto demonstrates an inability to understand the fundamental reasons that lead to the emergence of slums: economic and growth disparities between cities and rural places.

Desperate people in search of opportunities gravitate toward slums in metros. Unless one creates a system and infrastructure that provides all round growth, in metros as well as in rural pockets, this phenomenon will not end. Would AAP continue to build free houses for every new batch of immigrants settling down in slums? Instead, it would be prudent to learn from Modi’s model of governance in Gujarat. Modi channelized his government’s energies into creating an infrastructure for growth. This resulted in all round development in Gujarat and obviated the need for the rural poor to gravitate toward metros and settle down in slums.

In 2012, there was an organized protest to prevent the commissioning of the nuclear reactor in Koodankulam. Christian missionaries reportedly operating under the directive of imperial powers were orchestrating the protests. It was falsely alleged that the reactor lacked safety measures. Indian scientists refuted the allegation and pointed out that the reactor is safe and that India has an excellent nuclear safety record. The former president and scientist Abdul Kalam inspected the reactor and vouched for its safety. Yet, Kejriwal joined hands with the protestors and agitated against the commissioning of the reactor. This incident deserves to be examined.

The protests resulted in a shortage of electricity generation and adversely impacted economic growth. Students preparing for their exams were inconvenienced by the power outages. Nuclear reactors are necessary to generate electricity for a growing economy like India. They also provide Indian scientists the wherewithal to build nuclear weapons and hence create a deterrent against hostile powers.

However, imperial powers and the War Inc. which thrive on selling conventional weapons to Third World countries are opposed to the prospect of India becoming a stronger nuclear power due to many reasons. First, India with nuclear weapons cannot be arm-twisted. Second, with the credible deterrence that nuclear weapons offer against aggression, India wouldn’t spend billions of dollars on importing conventional weapons. Third, investments in nuclear research spawn innovations that would be applicable to other areas too: e.g., nuclear medicine. And this would transform India into an innovative technological state and not merely an outsourcing hub for Western corporations.

These prospects do not appeal to the imperial powers, multinational corporations, and the War Inc. So, they fund leftist NGOs to stage regular protests against nuclear technology using the pretext that it is unsafe or that nuclear weapons derail peace. Given the fact that conventional weapons have killed millions of people around the world and destroyed peace, one would expect these NGOs to protest against importing conventional weapons. However, they do not. How can they bite the hand that feeds them?

Why did Kejriwal support such NGOs and protestors? I am not implying that his integrity is suspect. On the contrary, I suggest other reasons and a serious error of judgment. He might have naïvely believed the propaganda that nuclear reactors are unsafe. However, this is a cause of worry. Should one entrust the future of a nation in the hands of a person who rather naïvely trusts propagandists than rely on the trustworthy assessments of nuclear scientists when it comes to the safety of a nuclear reactor? One would have expected better from an IIT Kharagpur-educated engineer.

Another possible reason is that he needed the backing of the leftist media to reach out to the public. So, he may have subconsciously chosen such themes as anti-nuclear protests to earn the approval of the media. If so, that does not testify to his strength as a leader. A strong leader, especially one who wants to reform the entire political system, should be able to withstand a hostile media. If he could stand up to Robert Vadra, he could stand up to the unscrupulous Indian media too. I hope Kejriwal would publicly revise his stance on anti-nuclear protests. Doing so would only increase his stature.

Some of his associates like Prashant Bhushan have supported Islamic separatism in Kashmir. Bhushan has also defended such terrorists as Abdul Nasser Madani in the Bangalore serial bomb blast case and made an appeal for clemency to the terrorist Afzal Guru. Bhushan voluntarily defended these dreaded terrorists. It is hard to tell what distinguishes him from the much despised lawyers who voluntarily defended the rapists of Nirbhaya in Delhi: both showed no qualms about defending those who committed the most despicable crimes against civil society.

In contrast, when asked to comment on the hanging of Afzal Guru, Kejriwal stated that one should not politicize such hangings that followed due judicial process. He went further and expressed his sympathies for the commandos who were injured during the terrorist attack. Kejriwal’s value system is at odds with Bhushan’s. So, rather than evasively claim that Bhushan has merely expressed his personal opinion Kejriwal should courageously denounce the likes of Bhushan and not associate with them. Would AAP elect the lawyers of the rapists of Nirbhaya to represent the party? Why would it then offer such a platform to the likes of Bhushan?

In an interview, Kejriwal expressed his admiration for such leaders as Sardar Patel, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and B R Ambedkar. All of them were persons of fortitude. Patel and Ambedkar not only recognized Islamic separatism as a danger to society but also did their best to repress it or warn their followers to save themselves from the dangers it posed. Kejriwal would be guilty of hypocrisy if he claims to admire these leaders on the one hand but continues to associate himself with such an advocate of Islamic separatism as Bhushan on the other.

Congress promoted the culture of communal politics for several decades. Other opportunistic parties like the SP, BSP, and DMK emulated the Congress and created their own communal vote banks. Vote bank politics led to the emergence of coalition governments and the rampant corruption and lack of accountability that accompany it. In recent years, Modi did a stellar job of reversing this brand of politics.

He convinced the electorate that regardless of whether one is a Hindu or a Muslim, a Brahmin or a Dalit, one should vote for the party that provides the best governance. Recent elections seem to indicate that this message has resonated well with the electorate. In several Muslim-dominated constituencies in M.P. and Rajasthan, BJP won handsomely thereby indicating that the Muslims voted for it in large numbers. It seems that an overwhelming majority of Dalits also voted for the BJP. In Delhi, AAP delivered its own version of Modi’s message: one should vote for the party that eradicates corruption.

This message too seems to have resonated well with the electorate. Muslims and Dalits, the traditional vote banks of the Congress, voted for the AAP in large numbers. This is one of the main reasons that not only Congress but other corrupt parties such as the SP and BSP were also routed in the polls.

This is a welcome trend. If Indians refuse to be part of vote banks and instead vote for those politicians who provide good governance, it would lead to the dismantling of the opportunistic and corrupt parties such as the Congress, SP, DMK, etc. Hopefully, BJP and AAP could replace them as the main contenders in the polls which would indeed augur well for India’s future.

Kejriwal seems to be a well-meaning person with many admirable traits. He is free to embrace economic and social policies that differ from Modi’s. However, he would serve society better in the long run if he were to rather embrace Modi’s pragmatic governance than embrace token populism. His stature as a leader would only increase if he were to reverse his indefensible stance on anti-nuclear protests and dissociate himself from the likes of Bhushan.

Kalavai Venkat is a Silicon Valley-based writer, an atheist, a practicing orthodox Hindu, and author of the forthcoming book What Every Hindu Should Know About Christianity.

Wrt point 2, what Prashant Bhushan conveniently ignores is the vast demographic change wrought by Pakistan on both sides (both the Indian side and the Pakistani side) in Kashmir. A fact he is conveniently overlooking is that Pakistan has brought in settlers by the ton into its side of Kashmir, completely changing the demography. As it stands, there is absolutely no way to who is a settler (many of them came as early as the 1950s) and who is not. As a point of consequence, in Gilgit and Baltistan, there are now more settlers than locals.

The UN resolutions demand plebiscite on both sides of the LoC. As it stands, the demography has totally changed on both sides. To give you an analogy, if I bring in people from the outside, and kick out all of your supporters, would you consider it a fair election?

By ignoring these points and making a case for plebiscite, Prashant Bhushan is deliberately targeting the territorial integrity of the Indian state by stealth, under lofty sounding phrases. That is one of the leaders of the AAP – a man who wants to destroy the territorial integrity of India.

maidros

Wrt Tauqeer Raza Khan, here is a report from 2007 in DNA about his antics

Do you still believe that Tauqeer Raza Khan is pure as the driven snow?

senthil

KV,

/** There are nuclear reactors on the outskirts of Mumbai and Chennai too: BARC and Kalpakkam respectively

**/

BAARC & kalpakkam were remote to chennai when they were established first.. if the nuclear reactors are so safe as you claim, what is preventing the govt from constructing it near kalpakkam or BAARC?

As per the own guidelines of Koodankulam project, it is mandated to construct the plant far away from towns.. here i think it is mentioned as some 30 km..

We can be powerful.. we can produce nuclear weapons.. right.. that should NOT treat the Non-Metro people as Guinea pigs to be sacrificed for the welfare of metros..

/** All of India belongs to all Indians. Period. India should make tech and
economic decisions based on what is in the best interests of all Indians
in the long-term and not on the basis of ignorance and insular
thinking.
**/

Pls stop with this urban bullshit.. You create a new identity called Indians and then come and grab the land of traditional society in which we had lived for thousands of years.. what is this logic?

Who are the beneficiaries of this mega projects? It is the big corporates, and global capitalists.. and if these are the components of YOUR india, then i want to tell you that majority people of of this land are NOT indians..

the real purpose of a nation is to protect its history, its traditiona institutions, its historic land settlements etc..

But the India of urban indians are treating this land as how the european colonisers saw the americas.. as virgin land to expand their colony without minding that there already existed the red indian civilization.. the urban indians are just destroying everything in traditional society to expand their metros & tier-II cities, which is what considered as India..

Gupta Deepak

Tauqeer Raza has said he had never issued a fatwa, because only a Mufti can issue one, and he is not a Mufti. He said there was a board of 100 members, and he was a member of that board some time back. And the Mufti issued a fatwa. He said he was targetted because people knew him well.

A PIL was filed but that does not prove Tauqeer Raza issued the fatwa. I am unable to find the outcome of the PIL, this needs to be checked.

Further, please note Arvind just met Tauqeer Raza, when he visited Bareily to “donate” chadar. He was not their to seek support or form alliance. Tauqeer Raza was not even invited to campaign for AAP.

Tauqeer Raza has clarified that he did no issue the fatwa. If outcome of PIL suggests to the contrary, then you have a case. Until then, this is just a conspiracy theory.

Gupta Deepak

Earlier Bhushan was given a tag of someone who believes in partitioning the country on communal lines. Now, you are saying that he might be right on referendum if it was to be done 60 years ago, but he is wrong on the timing as demographics have changed. In fact, if referendum has to happen Bhushan’s timing is right. Today, majority Kashmiris do not want to go with Pakistan. This is the reason that back channel talks between Musharraf and Manmohan were very successful. All major problems with Pakistan including Kashmir were resolved to a large extent.

Did Bhushan say that he wants plebiscite only on our side of LOC? If plebiscite has to happen, it will happen on both sides. Does even this help your case? Because you believe that Muslims (whether on Indian side or Pakistani side) will vote to go for Pakistan (which as mentioned earlier is not the ground reality). Not sure why you bring this up.

Bhushan has just expressed his thoughts. But party has told him we do not agree. So, AAP does not have a contrary stand to government on this.

Now, you may want to say, what if AAP wins general elections and makes Bhushan prime/foreign minister. In that case, he might get this referendum done. This is also not possible.

a. Party does not agree with his stand

b. AAP has said that it will go to public of India for all major decisions. This will surely be taken to the public.

In such a hypothetical scenario also, Bhushan cannot implement this.

But one can still see a conspiracy theory if one wants to. Please be guided by logic and facts. Also, please stop using grand words like “destroy the territorial integrity of India.” etc. Such mismatch between facts and your conclusions, give away the motive of creating a conspiracy theory where there is none.

Sarab

Prashant Bhushan is well aware of what he’s saying. If you see newsinsight analysis, the backdoor deals between US-Pak-India on the eve of US pullout from Afghanistan are of serious disadvantage to India. The traitorous concessions cong govt plans to make, just fall in line with what Bhushan hints at – virtually India parting with Kashmir under some formality or pretext. Kashmiri leadership stands to gain in a status quo and in keeping India bleeding. And neither AAP nor cong can lean to what is in Indian interests. The severe backlash he got forced AAP to go silent in this matter. Of course, it needs some patriotism and self respect to question the locus standi of plebiscite on what belongs to one’s nation – AAP being a naxalite crowd cannot be expected to have that.

Kalavai Venkat

On plebiscite, even if it is held on both sides of the border, India should simply not allow it. It should repudiate and reject the earlier commitment made by Nehru for the following reasons:

1.) Nehru’s opinion was not that of the majority of Indians. Nehru, in a helpless situation, succumbed to imperial pressure. No need to honor it now.

2.) Every nation should act in its best interests. Even a commitment should only be honored if it serves the future interests of India. Even if Kashmiri Muslims form a separate nation rather than join with India or Pakistan, it would still be tantamount to yielding to Islamic separatism. A future Islamic state would pose a threat to India.

3.) Pakistan was formed with over a quarter of the exchequer (55 crores of rupees then) and a fourth of the landmass proportionate to the Muslim population in undivided India. This implied that there would a population exchange, as Ambedkar sagely proposed, whereby all Sikhs and Hindus will come to India and Muslims go to Pakistan. However, after clamoring for partition, a majority of the Muslims stayed back in India. Now, they cannot divide it again. Period. If anything, there is a reasonable case to be made for liberating and integrating POK with India after India becomes a nuclear missile power and gets a powerful leadership.

4.) The creation of an Islamic state in the hypothetical scenario Kashmir becomes an independent Muslim state, harms the interests of Muslim civilians by shackling their women, repressing freedom, and preventing their emergence from medieval ignorance. No politician has the right to sacrifice a majority of the Muslims to appease a few mullahs, the UN, or anti-national leftists. Any politician that supports the plebiscite is a weakling. The correct approach should be to abolish article 370 and bring Kashmir on a par with the rest of India. This would allow Muslims to emerge educated and free.

Gupta Deepak

Kalavai – Thanks for the reply.

The larger point is that these are complex issues. Now we are down to splitting hairs. One should not ideally jump to fantastic conclusions from such weak facts. Now to the specific points you raised.

1. People on right have made Nehru their perennial target. When no argument works, they try go back to Nehru. You can target Nehru as much as you want. It is because of Nehru that we did not become a Hindu India, instead became a modern secular nation. It is because of Nehru that federal structure was put in place. Nehru’s counterpart in Pakistan Jinnah died in just over an year after Independence and Pakistan went to dogs. Nehru got crucial 17 years to lay a strong foundation – federal structure, secular ethic, stress on scientific research etc. Pakistani people understand this. Their respected news anchors constantly repeat this on their channels. If Jinnah had survived 17 years, Pakistan would have been much different. Somehow, due to misinformation spread by right and also due to some misdeeds of Nehru’s successors, Nehru is wrongly targeted.

Did he make some mistakes? He must have. Who does not make mistakes? As compared to his mistakes, his positive contribution is huge too huge too be ignored and should not be ignored.

Now, coming to the specific point. Kashmir was a tricky case and not as simple as you would want to make it sound. Muslim dominated region a Hindu king. How to deal with it because Hindu king was initially reluctant to sign the Instrument of Accession. India could not force him as it was a big border state. When Pakistan sent it intruders, Hari Singh approached India for help. Although tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered Jammu and Kashmir, there was no iron-clad legal evidence to unequivocally prove that Pakistan was officially involved. It was Mountbatten who stressed on signing the Instrument of Accession first before India helped. Mountbatten is the one you imperial pressure in your question. Mountbatten’s role after Independence was very much pro-India but he wanted to do things on strong legal footing. People can watch this video to get more information about Mountbatten’s role – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBKn6TFDVxQ

India sent her forces in and regained some land. In the hindsight, going to UN at that point might be error in judgement. However, at that time, it was not as clear what role UN could play in such situations. Who knew if UN had gone against India because the UN had previously passed resolutions for setting up monitoring of the conflict in Kashmir. So Nehru and other decision makes had to factor in lot of things, that you and me sitting here might not be able to appreciate. So it is unfair to say Nehru succumbed to imperial pressure (Mountbatten). You are unfairly targeting both Nehru and Mountbatten.

I do not have the time to go to points 2, 3 and 4. I may reply those shortly. But again we are down to splitting hairs. Most Tamil parties are ideologically supporters of a separate Tamil ealam. Some say Tamils ​​are one of the largest stateless nation in the world. Now, you cannot kill such ideas. All we can do is try to be as inclusive as possible. India has done a great job on this front. We have not treated any state unfairly. Pakistan did so and lost Bangladesh and some day they might also lose Balochistan as well.

May I reiterate, AAP is not supporting any referendum as people of the country do not want it. So fantastic conclusions about AAP supporting Islamic separatism do not hold much water.

Sarab

So you donno the difference between error of judgment and a traitorous blunder? So you donno the innumerable unholy mountbatten-nehru manipulations? So you donno that Nehru did not make an uninformed judgment but overruled informed men like Patel?

RVenkatanarayanan

Corruption in India is a popular horse to ride. This horse has ben running for a long time. But running a political party or a government is a very different exercise. (To say this does not mean corruption is justified or inescapable). My point is that Kejriwal and his associates have no clue to the issues of administrative principles and implementation of the so called Jan lokpal. Is it not utter nonsense to say that not only the JL but even the police officer who heads the CBI should be “independent” of all organs of govt.? Does Kejriwal want India to become Chile of the old days?
The 18 points AAP has put forward also smacks of irresponsibility and lack of understanding of administrative and legal issues.
I sincerely wish and hope that this man and his AAP get to run the Delhi govt. for a year to enable the voting public to get a realistic idea of what kind of cloud AAP and its leadership live in.

R.Venkatanarayanan

maidros

You are the one obfuscating facts here. If you read my reply, you will note that at no point have I said that the plebiscite was justified, even in 1947. The British gave the right to the rulers to choose which country they wanted to join. Kashmir joined India. Case closed.

What I am saying is that the UN resolution is absolutely invalid now, because of the vast demographic change wrought by Pakistan. Can you follow the difference? I also note that you conveniently ignored the question whether Bhushan is unaware of the change in demography brought about in Kashmir. If he is, he is ignorant, and should have been more careful in his overarching statements. If he knew and still suggested it, he is traitorous.

I never mentioned that Muslims want to go to Pakistan. That is your inference. Is this typical of the AAP – to ascribe false arguments to those who criticise them?

And where did you get the information that Kashmiris want to stay with India? Here is a poll from 2007 that majority of the Kashmiri valley people want independence.

It occurs to me that there is a cognitive dissonance in AAP supporters with their refusal to face the truth about their leaders. The basic fact is this: Prashant Bhushan made a statement that tries to destroy the territorial integrity of the country. Kashmir valley wants to secede from India, after making demographic changes to suit its agenda. By deliberately ignoring the rights of the Kashmiri Hindus, and recommending a plebiscite, Prashant Bhushan has chosen to tread a dangerous path.

maidros

You are again down to splitting hairs here by arguing whether it was a fatwa based on Islamic codes or not.

Here is a news article that speaks of what Tauqeer Raza did – he announced a bounty of Rs. 5 lakh on Tasleema Nasreen’s head to the All India Muslims Personal Law Board at the Board’s annual meeting. Whether it is a fatwa or not, the incitement to murder remains the same.

So – is it a matter of any concern whether it is an actual fatwa by Islamic regulations? Should it not be a matter of greater concern that a supposedly respected cleric is restricting the entry into India of a woman for expressing her views, and calling openly for her murder at a meeting of the Muslims’ Personal Law Board?

maidros

You seem to be in as much denial as the Pakistanis are about their state sponsored terrorism, or the Holocaust deniers who claim there is no evidence of the Holocaust. Define – `iron-clad legal evidence to unequivocally prove that Pakistan was officially involved’ Exactly what evidence would establish to you that Pakistan was involved in the invasion?

maidros

Absolutely true, Sarab-ji. The track 2 diplomacy, conducted by a bunch of jholawalas, was an inch away from handing over Siachen to Pakistan under the pretext of demilitarisation. Only the army’s stubborn stand against it prevented it. Hopefully, the coming NaMo government will just put an end to the idiotic talks to reward Pakistan for its terrorism.

Gupta Deepak

The news article says Raza issued fatwa. He says he did not. Now, who is right? There was a PIL filed as mentioned by you earlier. I think that is the way to find out the truth here. Moreover, Arvind has said publically, if Raza did issue such a fatwa, he will issue public apology. No one supports such fatwas at AAP.

Gupta Deepak

Mountbatten required iron-clad legal evidence. Pakistan claimed people who were involved in violence were locals. Now, strong evidence was required to prove that as some locals might have also joined in. Is this not possible?

Gupta Deepak

If this is the case – “The British gave the right to the rulers to choose which country they wanted to join. Kashmir joined India. Case closed.” Then why are raising the question of demographic change. I pointed out to this contradiction in your statements.

Again, you can keeping on harping on Bhushan’s statement. AAP does not endorse it. It is not possible to have people agree on all issues in any liberal group. It might be possible in parties with high command culture where you need to say what high command says. In case of Congress, high command is Sonia/Rahul Gandhi. In case of BJP, high command is RSS.

Sarab

And it is quite in open now, that these disruptionists are acting at the behest of forces inimical to the nation – civil society, ford etc. Those that are involved in disruption and support to several anti-national movements all over the world and instrumental in wrecking their social stability, are the ones supporting these AAP traitors. They are not merely directionless – they are meant to bring directionlessness to India. If Kejriwal is worried about corruption why did he try to frame an honest man like Gadkari? If Kejriwal is worried about corruption why is he not bothered about corrupt men, why is he obsessed against Modi? Fact is, he is a charlatan and foolish Delhi voters fell for his antics.

maidros

India’s argument has always been that Kashmir is an inalienable part of India. I am not the one who raised the demand for the plebiscite, as mandated by the UN. That was your leader – the honourable Prashant Bhushan, who is targeting India’s territorial integrity by stealth. i am pointing out why his demand, and the UN resolution, are invalid today. I am also pointing out how cynical this AAP leader is, and how pernicious his demand is. Is this the man you support and choose as a leader? One who is not even willing to defend India’s territorial integrity?

And are you so naive that you cannot see the difference between Jaswant Singh’s opinion about a person being secular or otherwise, and Prashant Bhushan’s demand that India part with some of her territory, for purposes of his own? I am used to cynicism in politics, but the cynical comment that a leader’s opinion regarding the territorial integrity of the country is irrelevant is, I must submit, the very height of cynicism.

And, having exhausted all your rhetorical tricks, you are compelled to fall back to that old cornerstone of every wannabe secularist – abusing the RSS. This discussion is, let me remind you, about the AAP and its leaders. The RSS may be the devils – it is not germane to this discussion. How can the AAP accept as a leader a man who does not even defend the territorial integrity of the country. What percentage of AAP members subscribes to the view that India’s territorial integrity is not sacrosanct? I think the public has a right to know how many in the AAP want to separate kashmir from India.

maidros

Dude – you are in as much denial as your Tauqeer Raza is. Do you need me to do all the research for you?

Here is an article when the Tauqeer Raza was singing a different tune. He not only owned up to putting a bounty on her head, but also claimed that he had the support of his community.

Even now, he is only claiming that it is not a fatwa that he issued (since it does not fit the Islamic code requirements), but he does not deny putting up the bounty on her head. This is the kind of creature that your Kejriwal loves to consort with, and when confronted with evidence, you AAP supporters perform verbal somersaults that somehow it is all fine.

Gupta Deepak

Like a puppet doll you are repeating yourself. Accordingly, I have to repeat the answer. AAP does not agree with Prashant. AAP’s policy on Kashmir is same as Indian Government’s – Kashmir is an inalienable part of India.

Get it. I hope so.

Gupta Deepak

Well, timesofindia reporting on this is a strong evidence that should not be ignored. I will share this with AAP leaders. If we are on wrong side of the table here, we have already said that we owe an apology in that case. It does not matter if it was a proper fatwa or not, just that Raza said this is enough. So thanks for sharing this.

maidros

Ahhh – everyone loves it when you play all sides of the game. Chicanery is disgusting. How can Prashant Bhushan be one of your leaders if he does not agree with India’s terrotiroal integrity?

Gupta Deepak

In any liberal group, there will be many sides on any issue. It is very normal. I know you will find it odd, because of high command culture in organizations you seem to support.

maidros

Dude – Prashant Bhushan’s `opinion’ is not only illegal according to the Indian constitution, but also against one of the fundamental duties imposed on every citizen by the Constitution, i.e., `To protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of the country’. It is obscene and disgusting to see someone try to pass off as merely a `different opinion’ the views of a man who is openly opposed to one of the fundamental duties imposed by the Constitution. It is interesting that Prashant Bhushan’s views on Kashmir conform to the views of the only convicted traitor in the history of independent India, i.e., Ayub Thakur.

Is treason the latest fashion among liberals? Or are you so deluded that you cannot distinguish between opinion and treason?

Gupta Deepak

All these tags are totally unreasonable. I have said this again and again that stop jumping to fantastic conclusions. Again, watch the clarification by Bhushan in the video I shared. Not only is this article unreasonable, even the debate is.

maidros

Prashant Bhushan has never ever disavowed plebiscite as a solution for the Kashmir issue. Even when he was questioned by CNN IBN after the controversy broke out, he has stuck to his view on the plebiscite.

If you AAP people really read what your own party leaders are saying, everyone would be in a lot less trouble. Instead, you want us to do the research for you, spoon feed you information about the views of your own leaders.

maidros

Yaawn – all this is known to your leaders. I am not holding my breath for the apology.

Gupta Deepak

Right. Most likely they know about this. I want to know from them their view on this. Is their any additional contrary piece of information that they have to support their view?

Gupta Deepak

Check this video that explains in detail the fundamental contribution of AAP.

Kejriwal to a certain extent he can be appraised a bit positively for his courage and honesty but then AAP party is not only Kejriwal … it is also Prashant Bhushan, Yogendra Yadav and many other political misfits !! Kejriwal may be able to deliver alone but together with the others in AAP he is beang led far left and away from good governance and development … not good for Delhi or India … best for the aam aadmi to stay away from AAP.

Sarab

What exactly is honest about Kejriwal? That the country is vexed with cong and he is trying to take power back into the hands of cong? That he subverted the anti-corruption and anti-blackmoney movement into a trivial election encashment? There is NOTHING honest about him. Wake up.

Deepak

🙂 … alright I wake up (love to agree in this case) … there is nothing honest about Kejriwal in public life …he said he would not contest politically .. then he retracted (n broke Anna’s trust)… then he said take Robert to court and again retracted .. then he said take Dixit to court and again retracted …. then he said 10 room house and again retracted … 🙂 …

… and yet to educate the common man on the misdirections of the AAP we need to go beyond this ‘jack of none’ publicist and talk about AAP (and not like it is Aam Arvind Party) …

Sarab

That is why single-point agenda never works and why BJP should emphasize not just corruption or governance but national security, Hindutva and a host of its agenda. It is the whole, even if individuals are interested in only one of those aspects, that makes BJP an alternative.

Besides, here’s the problem: every rogue around the main rogue act as a fence and in whiling away time. Just the way one after the other rogue around Sonia Maino was sacrificed by keeping her safe, the team of rogues around Kejri protect him. So attacking him directly, esp after his oneupman demonstrations against Anna Hazare, is the right way to go about.